I just can’t get enough of the bullshit that the AP likes to pass off as unbiased reporting.
In yesterday’s wrapup of the Syria border incursion by rioters—not “protesters”—we get this explanation of Syrian-Israeli relations over the years:
On Monday, Syrian police blocked dozens of protesters from approaching the Israeli frontier, apparently fearing a repeat of the deadly clashes a day earlier.
Syria gave no reason for the move, but could be wary of provoking Israel too much. While the two countries have not fought a war in nearly 40 years, Israel has occasionally struck targets inside Syria in response to perceived threats.
Gee. What could they possibly mean by that? Israel has occasionally bombed Syria? When? Why? A “perceived threat”? Why, that makes Israel look all jumpy and paranoid. In reality, Israel has struck inside Syria once that I can recall.
The head of the UN nuclear watchdog took a swipe at Israel on Monday for “allegedly” bombing to rubble a suspected Syrian reactor site in 2007, saying the case should have been reported to his agency instead.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been investigating Syria for three years over possible undeclared nuclear activity at the Dair Alzour site in the desert.
Ooooooh. Right. That “perceived threat.” Yes, very perceived. Not really a threat. Oh. Wait. Yes, it was. Even the UN says so.
Referring to Syria, Mr. Amano said: “the agency has come to the conclusion that it is very likely that the building destroyed at the Dair Alzour site was a nuclear reactor which should have been declared to the Agency. This is the best assessment of the agency, based on all the information in its possession.”
Why do I spend so much time on such a small part of a much larger article (slanted against Israel about the rioters attempting to invade the Israeli border)? Because every time the news media presents a biased view of Israel, it adds fuel to the anti-Israel side’s fires.